Kavanaugh Asks if Texas Abortion Law Could Be Model for Bans on Gun Rights

[M14 Shooter]

Back to the topic – which is rightwing hypocrisy.

Speaking of which...
Why won't you tell evryone you believe the TX abortion law is constitutional?

 

[Kilroy2]

Kavanaugh point is the flip flop argument

How can you ban Abortion by using the law

yet using the law you say the state cannot ban guns

The constitution can be changed and that is by using an amendment and then there is the matter of citizenship. The unborn child is not the citizen, it is the parents.

The pursuit of being happy lies with the individual who is the citizen.

 

[Stann]

Justice Brett Kavanaugh floated the possibility of Texas's abortion law becoming a model for states to restrict other constitutional rights, such as gun rights under the Second Amendment.

The associate justice, appointed by former President Donald Trump, specifically posed a theoretical law that would allow the seller of an AR-15 semi-automatic weapon to be sued for $1 million.

The Texas solicitor general acknowledged the possibility but said Congress could pass laws to protect such rights. Kavanaugh seemed wary of such intervention.

"Some of those examples, I think, would be quite difficult to get legislation through Congress," Kavanaugh said.

Kavanaugh Poses Possibility That Texas Abortion Law Can Apply to Gun Rights

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the Supreme Court Monday that "no constitutional right is safe" if the Texas law is allowed to stand.

www.newsweek.com

So you could use a Texas abortion style law to restrict guns in California? It gets around the Constitution.

I did not see this coming. Did you?

I do not understand how the Texas abortion law still standing it is encounter with basics human rights. It totally violates both major aspects of the privacy laws 1. The general law of privacy, what's your Ford's a tort action for damages resulting from an unlawful invasion of privacy and 2. The constitutional right of privacy which protects personal privacy from unlawful governmental invasion.

 

[Stann]

I do not understand how the Texas abortion law still standing it is encounter with basics human rights. It totally violates both major aspects of the privacy laws 1. The general law of privacy, what's your Ford's a tort action for damages resulting from an unlawful invasion of privacy and 2. The constitutional right of privacy which protects personal privacy from unlawful governmental invasion.

What they've done is circumvent the law tervade its own responsibilities to protect its citizens right of privacy, which is a crime in of itself. Either we have some really stupid supreme Court judges or they are not fit to be judges on the supreme Court to not rule against this case.

 

[hadit]

What they've done is circumvent the law tervade its own responsibilities to protect its citizens right of privacy, which is a crime in of itself. Either we have some really stupid supreme Court judges or they are not fit to be judges on the supreme Court to not rule against this case.

Would you be so kind as to point out where the Constitution spells out a right to privacy? I know where the right to bear arms and the right to free speech can be found, what about privacy?

 

[Stann]

Would you be so kind as to point out where the Constitution spells out a right to privacy? I know where the right to bear arms and the right to free speech can be found, what about privacy?

Both the 4th and 9th amendments to the Constitution cover this.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Both the 4th and 9th amendments to the Constitution cover this.

And now you're going to explain, using the actual text, how either the 4th or the 9th Amendment grant an unlimited "right to privacy".

 

[Turtlesoup]

Nowhere in the Constitution is there anything that even hints at a right for a woman to have her own child killed in cold blood.

The case for a Constitutional right to abortion is based on a mountain of falsehoods piled on falsehoods.

The Constitution does, however, explicitly affirm a right, belonging to the people, to keep and bear arms, and forbids government from infringing this right.

There is no honest comparison between the two.

Abortions have been around for thousands of years--there is nothing in the constitution that bans them ergo they arent banned. AND FYI---terminating a pregnancy is not murdering a child. Nature often aborts unwanted zygotes/fetus's.

 

[Stann]

And now you're going to explain, using the actual text, how either the 4th or the 9th Amendment grant an unlimited "right to privacy".

I don't need to explain further. It's common sense. It was explained post 323. If that's not enough the Constitution was established so people in America could pursue, " Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. ". No one has to live up to any religious code of conduct, or anyone else's mortal code other than their own.

 

[Stann]

Abortions have been around for thousands of years--there is nothing in the constitution that bans them ergo they arent banned. AND FYI---terminating a pregnancy is not murdering a child. Nature often aborts unwanted zygotes/fetus's.

The devious Texas anti-abortion law that was passed banning all abortions past 6 weeks is totally illegal. It is unchristian, unAmerican and just plain inhuman. At 6 weeks it's still in the embryonic stage it isn't even a fetus yet. It has a primitive heart that just formed, it is about a half inch long, a third of its body length is a tail. It has no eyes it has no legs it has no arms it can't see it can't hear the lungs haven't begun to develop, the brain is not much more than a brain stem. And this is why they want to protect. Once it's born they don't give a damn about it. A child that isn't born into a loving family shouldn't be born at all. Love is the only reason to have a child. There are many, many reasons to have an abortion. This matter should have never gone to the courts they should have said it's a medical issue and they should have stayed the hell out of it this is ridiculous we're going through this again. how can people be that stupid.

 

[Stann]

Nowhere in the Constitution is there anything that even hints at a right for a woman to have her own child killed in cold blood.

The case for a Constitutional right to abortion is based on a mountain of falsehoods piled on falsehoods.

The Constitution does, however, explicitly affirm a right, belonging to the people, to keep and bear arms, and forbids government from infringing this right.

There is no honest comparison between the two.

You're right it's a silly comparison. Autonomy over one's body certainly is more important than the right to bear arms. It's the whole reason the Constitution was written, " Life. liberty and the pursuit of happiness ". That is the first right, that right for belongs to every person / citizen.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And yet there is a class of human beings where your whole position is to deny then the right to life, to deny that they are even human.

And in accordance with that position, thousands of them are murdered in cold blood every day, with no legal consequences for those who are responsible for these murders.

You really cannot go any lower than this, any more evil than this, to advocate for the murder of the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings.

 

[Stann]

And yet there is a class of human beings where your whole position is to deny then the right to life, to deny that they are even human.

And in accordance with that position, thousands of them are murdered in cold blood every day, with no legal consequences for those who are responsible for these murders.

You really cannot go any lower than this, any more evil than this, to advocate for the murder of the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings.

A fetus is a potential human being that is all, and with the Texas law it's not even a fetus it's just an embryo. You are trying to weigh " their rights " against the rights of people who actually exist that are already here and are protected by the laws they shouldn't be made victims of our laws especially insane stupid laws that are based on emotional ideas that aren't true about life. Stupidity is going lower than any human being should go and that's what this is it's all stupidity we've been through this s*** before we're not going through it again.

 

[Stann]

A fetus is a potential human being that is all, and with the Texas law it's not even a fetus it's just an embryo. You are trying to weigh " their rights " against the rights of people who actually exist that are already here and are protected by the laws they shouldn't be made victims of our laws especially insane stupid laws that are based on emotional ideas that aren't true about life. Stupidity is going lower than any human being should go and that's what this is it's all stupidity we've been through this s*** before we're not going through it again.

Name one single victim of abortion. You can't because they never existed in the first place.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Name one single victim of abortion. You can't because they never existed in the first place.

An absurd statement. Of course they existed. Whether they were ever given names, whether they were ever recognized for what they were, they were all precious, innocent human beings, brutally murdered for no better reason than that their existence was inconvenient to someone else.

removed graphic images

 

[Rogue AI]

WTF?
Yes, they were.

Those were some rights, people previously never had.
Therefore, granted.

If it can be removed by a 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court, it is not a right. Roe v Wade is an interpreted privilege, nothing more. The 2nd Amendment is a right, even a 9-0 ruling by the Supreme Court cannot get it out of the Constitution.

 

[westwall]

GREAT!

Abortion kills unborn children.
Guns enable suicide and murder.

Human Life is precious.

Most of it is. But not all.

 

[Stann]

An absurd statement. Of course they existed. Whether they were ever given names, whether they were ever recognized for what they were, they were all precious, innocent human beings, brutally murdered for no better reason than that their existence was inconvenient to someone else.

View attachment 586792View attachment 586793View attachment 586794View attachment 586796

No it's not. My mother's cousins, Joe and Olga Pulaski died in the concentration camps. There were people, they existed, they had names. People have names. Embryos and fetuses do not because they are not people. I know it's hard for you to accept but that's the truth.

 

[Stann]

If it can be removed by a 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court, it is not a right. Roe v Wade is an interpreted privilege, nothing more. The 2nd Amendment is a right, even a 9-0 ruling by the Supreme Court cannot get it out of the Constitution.

You are an idiot. You can do away with Roe versus Wade. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the rights of more than half the population of the United States the women their rights to have control over their own bodies. You can't tell them they're equal citizens and then hijack their bodies from them that's insane there is no legal standing to prevent abortions, just as there is no legal standing to force people to have them. Which may someday be the case very soon when the world realizes the big problem is overpopulation when it's already too late when people are starving when supplies are dwindling and resources are scarce. If you give the government this power now, they will have the power to force people to have abortions in the future. Women will be second class citizens forever.

 

[Man of Ethics]

Most of it is. But not all.

Almost all life is precious. A possible exception may be lives of some serial killers.